Jesus's Genealogy

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#21
The word "husband" in Matt 1:16 can also be translated "man". In this verse it means "father". Mary's father was also named Joseph. Count out the generations. If the Joseph in v16 is Mary's husband, there are only 13 generations from babylon to Jesus. Matthew is the genealogy through Mary, Luke is the genealogy through Joseph, Jesus' "supposed" father. Further, Matthew tells the story of Jesus as King, so it makes sense the genealogy in Matthew would be through David and Solomon. Luke portrays Christ as a man, so the genealogy in Luke it through his "supposed" father Joseph all the way back to Adam.
Mary's father's name was Heli. her lineage is recorded in Luke.
Matthew is Joseph's genealogy.

you have it backwards shroom.
(as was supposed) means in-laws....that's why Mary is not mentioned by name in her own (and Christ's) genealogy, rather Joseph is named (as was supposed - in-laws). the husband's name is placed in the woman's genealogy.

Luke portrays Jesus as the perfect Man, and so rightly is listed in the genealogy of Mary: flesh.
Jesus is portrayed as King of israel in Matthew, and as Joseph is also rightly of the Kingline through Solomon, Jesus is rightfully Heir on both sides.
zone.
 
Last edited:
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#22
The word "husband" in Matt 1:16 can also be translated "man". In this verse it means "father". Mary's father was also named Joseph. Count out the generations. If the Joseph in v16 is Mary's husband, there are only 13 generations from babylon to Jesus. Matthew is the genealogy through Mary, Luke is the genealogy through Joseph, Jesus' "supposed" father. Further, Matthew tells the story of Jesus as King, so it makes sense the genealogy in Matthew would be through David and Solomon. Luke portrays Christ as a man, so the genealogy in Luke it through his "supposed" father Joseph all the way back to Adam.
Incorrect...

anér: a man
Original Word: ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: anér
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-ayr)
Short Definition: a male human being, a man
Definition: a male human being; a man, husband.

...it is not translated 'father'.

Mary's father's name was Heli. her lineage is recorded in Luke.
Matthew is Joseph's genealogy.

you have it backwards shroom.
(as was supposed) means in-laws....that's why Mary is not mentioned by name in her own (and Christ's) genealogy, rather Joseph is named (as was supposed - in-laws). the husband's name is placed in the woman's genealogy.

Luke portrays Jesus as the perfect Man, and so rightly is listed in the genealogy of Mary: flesh.
Jesus is portrayed as King of israel in Matthew, and as Joseph is also rightly of the Kingline through Solomon, Jesus is rightfully Heir on both sides.
zone.
That explanation doesn't make sense: "as was supposed" means, "people thought" -- i.e.: "people thought Joseph was Jesus's father".
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#23
Mary's father's name was Heli. her lineage is recorded in Luke.
Matthew is Joseph's genealogy.

you have it backwards shroom.
(as was supposed) means in-laws....that's why Mary is not mentioned by name in her own (and Christ's) genealogy, rather Joseph is named (as was supposed - in-laws). the husband's name is placed in the woman's genealogy.

Luke portrays Jesus as the perfect Man, and so rightly is listed in the genealogy of Mary: flesh.
Jesus is portrayed as King of israel in Matthew, and as Joseph is also rightly of the Kingline through Solomon, Jesus is rightfully Heir on both sides.
zone.
Zone I like the explanation for (as was supposed) do you have more info on it
 
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#24
If you have a problem with the family trees, just ignore it... after all, that's what these guys recommended!

Titus 3.9: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

1 Timothy 1.4: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do."
That was talking about Jews, who practiced the venerating of certain genealogies. I just question whether "the Bible" is really "infallible".


This is not an explanation. Saying that the genealogies would differ based on the audience is to fail to understand what a genealogy is. They differ because it was two different writers and they both wrote what they thought was accurate, one or both of them was incorrect. The other possibility is they differ because of series of copying errors made before the earliest existing copies of the texts.
What they THOUGHT was accurate -- that's the point: the New Testament isn't 100% trustworthy. 1 Th 5:21 warns "test all things; keep what is good", and that is all I am doing -- testing this book, called "the Bible".
 
C

CanadaNZ

Guest
#25
That was talking about Jews, who practiced the venerating of certain genealogies. I just question whether "the Bible" is really "infallible".




What they THOUGHT was accurate -- that's the point: the New Testament isn't 100% trustworthy. 1 Th 5:21 warns "test all things; keep what is good", and that is all I am doing -- testing this book, called "the Bible".
Hmm so you agree with the point, you believe 1 Th 5:21, but what about 2 Tim 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" The bible is very clear you must accept all or nothing. If you are unsure of the Bibles trustworthiness check out this series of talks or this website Home-JMM

The bible is the true infallible work of God.
 

TheAristocat

Senior Member
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
26
0
#26
Incorrect...

anér: a man
Original Word: ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: anér
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-ayr)
Short Definition: a male human being, a man
Definition: a male human being; a man, husband.

...it is not translated 'father'.



That explanation doesn't make sense: "as was supposed" means, "people thought" -- i.e.: "people thought Joseph was Jesus's father".
Jesus was supernaturally conceived like Samson but not quite in the same way since he is God. One of the genealogies traces Jesus' lineage through Mary and the other traces Jesus' adoptive lineage through Joseph. Both lineages stem from David, showing Jesus' right to be king (i.e. Messiah or "Anointed One"), but Mary (i.e. Jesus' biological mother) had a cousin who was of the tribe of Levi which seems to imply that Jesus was primarily of the tribe of Judah but also had ties to the tribe of Levi. It's been a while since I've studied the genealogies, and I'm going on memory here so you'll have to forgive me if I get mixed up.
 
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#27
Hmm so you agree with the point, you believe 1 Th 5:21, but what about 2 Tim 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" The bible is very clear you must accept all or nothing. If you are unsure of the Bibles trustworthiness check out this series of talks or this website Home-JMM

The bible is the true infallible work of God.
There have been many iterations of 'the Bible'; what makes you think your version of 'the Bible' is the right one? Your magic number 66 books is correct? "The Bible" is an "establishment" of MAN; not God.

The definition of "Scripture" (when the Apostles wrote) was "the Hebrew Scriptures"; not "the Bible", since the "New Testament" did NOT exist (had not been compiled), at that time. For you to tell me "you must believe ALL 'the Bible'" doesn't make sense, since it is a compilation of books, wherein some may prove true and some false.

Jesus was supernaturally conceived like Samson but not quite in the same way since he is God. One of the genealogies traces Jesus' lineage through Mary and the other traces Jesus' adoptive lineage through Joseph. Both lineages stem from David, showing Jesus' right to be king (i.e. Messiah or "Anointed One"), but Mary (i.e. Jesus' biological mother) had a cousin who was of the tribe of Levi which seems to imply that Jesus was primarily of the tribe of Judah but also had ties to the tribe of Levi. It's been a while since I've studied the genealogies, and I'm going on memory here so you'll have to forgive me if I get mixed up.
NO, it doesn't trace genealogy through Mary. Mary isn't mentioned even once in the genealogies. I don't mean to say Jesus wasn't qualified to be Messiah; I mean to say 'the Bible' isn't 'the infallible Word of God'.

I noticed people taking great liberty with translation of this false Scripture; I see no one owning up to the fact that it MIGHT be fallible, since it most obviously contradicts itself (this, being one of the more glaring difficulties which the "New Testament" pseudo-Scripture has with itself). Stop making excuses for something that is so obviously false/tradition.
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#28
That was talking about Jews, who practiced the venerating of certain genealogies. I just question whether "the Bible" is really "infallible".




What they THOUGHT was accurate -- that's the point: the New Testament isn't 100% trustworthy. 1 Th 5:21 warns "test all things; keep what is good", and that is all I am doing -- testing this book, called "the Bible".

The Bible is accurate just misunderstood, if you read the genealogies in the Bible it always goes by the male, even if it is a son in law and because Luke starts with (as was supposed ) then it would be this line that Joseph is the son in law. Matthew does not use this line to refer to Christ, also in Luke is Salathiel who is also mentioned in Matthew as having a different father and 1 Chronicles 3:17 Salathiel has the same father mentioned as in Matthew therefore in Luke he is the son in law since they always put the male in the genealogies

So in Luke is two son in laws, Joseph and
Salathiel and two who are mentioned as son of God, Jesus (v22) and Adam
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#29
I mean to say 'the Bible' isn't 'the infallible Word of God'.

Stop making excuses for something that is so obviously false/tradition.
Stop pretending to be Christian when you are obviously not.

what do you believe since you have allowed yourself to pick and choose scriptures?

which scriptures do you actually believe?

How does Jesus save and redeem the world?

who do YOU believe Jesus is?
 
Apr 13, 2011
2,229
11
0
#30
Mary's father's name was Heli. her lineage is recorded in Luke.
Matthew is Joseph's genealogy.

you have it backwards shroom.
(as was supposed) means in-laws....that's why Mary is not mentioned by name in her own (and Christ's) genealogy, rather Joseph is named (as was supposed - in-laws). the husband's name is placed in the woman's genealogy.

Luke portrays Jesus as the perfect Man, and so rightly is listed in the genealogy of Mary: flesh.
Jesus is portrayed as King of israel in Matthew, and as Joseph is also rightly of the Kingline through Solomon, Jesus is rightfully Heir on both sides.
zone.
I do not have it backwards. Count the generations. If Joseph in Matt 1:16 is Mary's husband, there are only 13 generations from the carrying away into Babylon to Christ.

Where do you get that "as was supposed" means inlaws? It doesn't. It means what it says, that people thought He was Joseph's son.
 
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#31
The Bible is accurate just misunderstood, if you read the genealogies in the Bible it always goes by the male, even if it is a son in law and because Luke starts with (as was supposed ) then it would be this line that Joseph is the son in law. Matthew does not use this line to refer to Christ, also in Luke is Salathiel who is also mentioned in Matthew as having a different father and 1 Chronicles 3:17 Salathiel has the same father mentioned as in Matthew therefore in Luke he is the son in law since they always put the male in the genealogies

So in Luke is two son in laws, Joseph and
Salathiel and two who are mentioned as son of God, Jesus (v22) and Adam
Sounds like a complicated excuse.

Stop pretending to be Christian when you are obviously not.

what do you believe since you have allowed yourself to pick and choose scriptures?

which scriptures do you actually believe?

How does Jesus save and redeem the world?

who do YOU believe Jesus is?
Oh, I think you just added to the requirements of what it takes to be a Christian, since the last time I checked, it only was required to believe in Jesus as being God's Son, Messiah, my Atonement, Who died for me and was raised, to be saved -- nowhere in there is it mentioned "and you must believe 'the Bible' is infallible in order to be a Christian.

Where do you get that "as was supposed" means inlaws? It doesn't. It means what it says, that people thought He was Joseph's son.
Yep; people defend their precious idol; it is non-sensical.
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#32
Sounds like a complicated excuse.



Oh, I think you just added to the requirements of what it takes to be a Christian, since the last time I checked, it only was required to believe in Jesus as being God's Son, Messiah, my Atonement, Who died for me and was raised, to be saved -- nowhere in there is it mentioned "and you must believe 'the Bible' is infallible in order to be a Christian.



Yep; people defend their precious idol; it is non-sensical.
Your profile says you are from Israel so I have a question for you:-Do you believe in Jesus?
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#36
Zone I like the explanation for (as was supposed) do you have more info on it
Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews (z) that he "that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father''
Gill's

The son of Heli - That is, the son - in - law: for Heli was the father of Mary. So St. Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by St. Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families.
Wesley


we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph-here His real, there His reputed line-explain the statement about Joseph, that he was "the son of Hell," to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph's name is only introduced instead of Mary's, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables
JFB

and so on.
 
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#38
So then the problem is not with the Bible it is with your relationship with Christ here is something to help you:-
That chart is not going to help anyone in their walk with Christ; and the Bible is its own problem, for it is not trustworthy, and cannot pass simple tests.

Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews (z) that he "that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father''
Gill's

The son of Heli - That is, the son - in - law: for Heli was the father of Mary. So St. Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by St. Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families.
Wesley


we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph-here His real, there His reputed line-explain the statement about Joseph, that he was "the son of Hell," to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph's name is only introduced instead of Mary's, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables
JFB

and so on.
It doesn't say son-in-law; it says "son" -- there are words for "son-in-law". What other proof do you have that Miriam was born of Heli? Every fact must be established in the mouths of two or three witnesses.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#39
There have been many iterations of 'the Bible'; what makes you think your version of 'the Bible' is the right one? Your magic number 66 books is correct? "The Bible" is an "establishment" of MAN; not God.

The definition of "Scripture" (when the Apostles wrote) was "the Hebrew Scriptures"; not "the Bible", since the "New Testament" did NOT exist (had not been compiled), at that time. For you to tell me "you must believe ALL 'the Bible'" doesn't make sense, since it is a compilation of books, wherein some may prove true and some false.



NO, it doesn't trace genealogy through Mary. Mary isn't mentioned even once in the genealogies. I don't mean to say Jesus wasn't qualified to be Messiah; I mean to say 'the Bible' isn't 'the infallible Word of God'.

I noticed people taking great liberty with translation of this false Scripture; I see no one owning up to the fact that it MIGHT be fallible, since it most obviously contradicts itself (this, being one of the more glaring difficulties which the "New Testament" pseudo-Scripture has with itself). Stop making excuses for something that is so obviously false/tradition.
her husband joseph is listed and considered "son of" Heli - it means son-in-law.
this was the jewish custom.

does that help resolve the infallibilty issue?

God has it all covered. no one will have an excuse.

Jeremiah made it clear:

Jeremiah 33
14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. 15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. 17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

why no want of a king or priest again...ever?
Jesus came. He is forever both.

amen.

if you are jewish, you would do well to recognize that the Messiah already came, and is King of kings and Lord of lords.
no falsehood or tradition involved.

Wonderful reality.
 
Last edited:

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#40
That chart is not going to help anyone in their walk with Christ; and the Bible is its own problem, for it is not trustworthy, and cannot pass simple tests.



It doesn't say son-in-law; it says "son" -- there are words for "son-in-law". What other proof do you have that Miriam was born of Heli? Every fact must be established in the mouths of two or three witnesses.
apparently you are having an issue believing God's Word.

i recommend studying the family tree of John the baptist. John's mother Elizabeth and Mary were cousins, through the Priest line (for Mary this was on her maternal side - Mary & Elizabeth's mothers were sisters).

Luke 1
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

8And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, 9According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

18And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. 20And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

21And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple. 22And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless. 23And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

24And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, 25Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

~

and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

David was not the actual father of Jesus, yet is called so, having descended from him.
jewish custom.
 
Last edited: